[drmaa-wg] RE: Latest OO binding spec v0.3

Rajic, Hrabri hrabri.rajic at intel.com
Fri Mar 4 14:14:26 CST 2005

We should simplify our life a bit.

If we make the OO doc independent of/not referencing DRMAA v1.0 spec,
all the nice things that were impractical to do in that doc could be
rolled in.


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Templeton [mailto:Dan.Templeton at Sun.COM] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:49 PM
To: Rajic, Hrabri
Cc: DRMAA Working Group
Subject: Re: [drmaa-wg] RE: Latest OO binding spec v0.3

Rajic, Hrabri wrote:

>I have gone thru the spec.  It is in a very good shape for version 0.3.
>Introspection, page 3 is both a blessing and a curse.  We need standard
>mechanisms, getters and setters for C++.  There are few other places
>also mentioning just introspection, but Peter has marked few of them.
The intention is to provide guidance for both introspective and
non-introspective languages.  Please point out anywhere the
non-introspective bit is missing.

>Checked/unchecked exception list needs consensus.  C++ seems to be
>different here too, isn't it?
As far as I know, Java is the only major language that makes that
distinction.  Smalltalk probably does too, since Java is borrowed many
concepts from that language, but I don't forsee a Smalltalk binding
anytime soon.  This is a Java language binding issue, but since the OO
spec is trying to accomodate everyone, it has to explicitly make
allowances for all the outliers.

>Comma delimited return strings needs to be converted to StringList
Uh...  That's not consistent with the DRMAA 1.0 spec.  I really dislike
what the 1.0 spec does, but this is one of those hot topics that will be
difficult to change.  I have brought it up before, only to be told that
since it took so much bloodshed to reach an agreement in the first
place, we should never revisit it.  I personally see that part as the
worst part of the 1.0 spec and would love to reopen the discussion.

>Should we reference DRMAA 1.0 spec?  How much info OO doc needs from
>1.0 spec?  If not much, it could be a good idea to make it spec 1.0
This goes to my previous point.  I have always forseen the OO spec as
the source for the DRMAA 2.0 spec.  In that regard, it should not be
bound by the DRMAA 1.0 spec.  However, since the OO spec is affecting
changes in the Java and .Net specs, and we're holding the Java and .Net
specs to the DRMAA 1.0 standard, the OO spec cannot break 1.0.


*        Daniel Templeton   ERGB01 x60220         *
*       Staff Engineer, Sun N1 Grid Engine        *
* "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads." *
*                    -Dr. Emmett Brown            *
*                     Back to the Future (1985)   *

More information about the drmaa-wg mailing list